Hacker News Reader

Comment by jazzypants | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

You're pre-emptive hostility seems rather unwarranted.

This article is my usual go-to and lists several reasons why JavaScript might not be available, and thus why you shouldn't take it for granted: https://piccalil.li/blog/a-handful-of-reasons-javascript-won...

I feel compelled to add:

- the user explicitly disabled JavaScript

- the browser does not support JavaScript (I sometimes view websites using elinks)

AFAIK screen readers also work better without JavaScript, so it's also an accessibility issue.

JavaScript doesn't effect screen readers at all unless you dynamically add content without the proper ARIA roles. It is trivial to correct.

As I just said, users who explicitly disable JavaScript cannot even use Google Search. Why should I accommodate those users when even Google refuses to do so? They are actively choosing to have a limited web experience. The vast majority of the internet is completely broken for them.

Lots of important points already posted, from reliability over accessibility to SEO. To add a personal reason: speed. I hate slow computer things. If I open a page I e.g. don't have to use for work or similar (like Google Ads or Linkedin or similar horror shows), and loading the page takes longer than a second, I just bounce.

I built and maintain a static site for a company, and it's just wonderful. It opens instantly (which the search engines like), rebuilding and deploying is trivial, I am not forced to update every week because the JS framework has a new vuln.(There are a few dynamic, JS-based parts that load dynamically and fail gracefully.)

None of this refutes my post whatsoever. The amount of JavaScript to open a hamburger menu is literally around 500 bytes. It can easily gracefully degrade just like your last sentence said. You're going to load much, much more than that by following TFA. It loads an entire new HTML page! This argument just doesn't work here.

There's nothing to refute in your post; you only told the audience that you don't get OP, and people tried to explain the appeal to you. What you do with that information is your thing.

None of what you said explained the appeal of OP's technique! Using JavaScript doesn't have to affect your reliability, accessibility, SEO, or any of the things you said. How am I supposed to do anything with useless information?

If anything, hiding the hamburger menu behind an HTTP response is *less accessible*!

Not to mention the article's menu "close" button relies on JS to send you back to the correct page, and doesn't work with open in new tab / window even with JS enabled.

i'd say it really depends on the website you're building and what you define as "using javascript"

are you comparing fully client rendering vs SSR without client JS at all? are you building a marketing site or a dashboard type tool?

there is subtly to why each decision would be made based on these.

i think HN tends to demonize JS because we're all well aware of how bad the state of a lot of web apps have become with developers only knowing react and having no background in web fundamentals or accessibility.

i see no reason to completely shun JS, just use it intentionally and not reflexively.

Thank you so much for having one of the few measured takes in this thread. I'm not advocating for throwing React and NPM at every problem, but a little bit of hand-written JS is rarely an issue.

> when it's much easier to just build a nice website using JavaScript

I'm currently building a web-based tool that uses dynamic forms for UI, without the help of of a framework (yeah I know; I have reasons). This is the result: https://github.com/KaliedaRik/sc-filter-builder/blob/main/js...

It's not "easier" using Javascript; raw Javascript websites are a nightmare to build, maintain and reason about. It is "easier" with Javascript + current-favourite-framework-of-the-day.

Also: accessibility, SEO, the all-new Generative Engine Optimization (GEO) thing, etc.

Why wouldn't google work without javascript? Just use some forms, submit the text the user entered, get back a page with the search results...

OP is right. a quick google (hehe) shows you they require it as of 2024.

But you don't need JS to make a search engine work. I'm pretty sure I've used links2 in the past to google things just fine. Google Search would work fine without JS, Google just wants to track people

Google is an advertising company. Not a search engine company.

They don't want your patronage if they can't track you and commodify you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com